My Vote is For

After much thought, I will be voting for Lib Dems on May 6th, even though my constituently leans towards being a Tory safe seat. For me that's always been a problem. The previous MP just took it for granted that people would vote Tory and put his feet up in-between elections, in fairness it must have been tiring, after spending large amounts of taxpayers money. Thus my vote will go some way to making this seat less safe and more accountable.

Tactically having the Lib Dems in opposition or working with the Tories, would cover the worries that I have about the Conservatives with regard to social issues, economic unfairness and non progressive policy. Certainly I see it being in my interest as a gay woman, to have a socially liberal party either working to influence the Tories or opposing them. Not because I think the Tories will roll back any gay rights legislation, I don't think they will. More that I doubt such a minority of people will be high on there list of considerations. The religious vote is bigger and more blue rosette wearing.

But more important for me and central to my choice, what a wonderful thing it would be, to show them who's parliament it really is, not Labours or any parties, but the peoples. I gladly place my vote for the change the Lib Dems could bring.

Labour 3rd - Lib Dems Flying

What a poll.

Tory 33% (-4)
Lib Dems 30% (+8)
Labour 28% (-4)

Other polls released after, show this to be not just a one off. It's a wonderful thought that politics could change this much. Not just the switch back and forth between Tory and Labour, but a fundamental shift in politics. That's really inspiring to me, because it's democracy in action, something I unapologetically believe in.

Yet it's worrying on another account, at these figures it would make Labour the winner in a hung parliament. Brown still in charge even though he is 3rd. The very notion that the electorate could vote for change and get Brown, could be a very divisive non victory.

Which is what this boost hangs on - if people all the way to the voting booth, believe that voting Lib Dem would make a difference, we could really see an amazing election. If however by voting Lib Dem people think it could end with Brown, they will vote tactically. That tactical "anything but Brown" vote has been the one persistent element to the polls. More persistent than Brown weathering coups.

So let's see if it's sustainable. Certainly making for an interesting election.

Dance Of Democracy

> Click on image to enlarge <

I went to the Saatchi Gallery's current exhibition entitled "The Empire Strikes Back: Indian Art Today". It was a very interesting exhibition, largely because I'm so used to seeing work that reflects western culture, it was fascinating to see eastern culture in this way. I was surprised at just how political a lot of the work was.

One artwork that stood out to me was "Dance Of Democracy" by Mansoor Ali, it's the picture above. A series of chairs precariously perched together. When you stand in front of it there's a feeling that it may fall any minute, if luck is what holds it all together. You start looking for logical reasons as to why it stays together, glue sticking it? A frame inside it? The chairs have notches that interlink? All to no avail. It somehow against all odds stays in place, as fragile as it is.

I really liked that visual interpretation of democracy, as it is also in it's nature bureaucratic, made up of seats, committees and departments. Thus the humble chair is a prefect choice to symbolise it.

Afghanistan Letter

Afghanistan is dominating the news right now, casting a long shadow over Downing St. For the second day running Browns "scrawled" letter is across the papers. I'm no fan of Brown, I like him about as much as I would like to get E.coli, yet the behaviour of the press in this instance has been shameful. Using the death of a serviceman and the grief of his family as a stick with which to beat Brown, is journalism at it's worst.

Attacking him and this government over spelling mistakes made by partly blind man feels desperate and so exploitive. It was a stupid mistake, miss managed, I don't believe that even Brown would set out to offend Mrs Janes with intent. With questions over the troops numbers, reasons for being there or equipment, are these not the things the press should be pushing for answers and holding the government to account for? Yet instead we hear for two days how bad the man handwriting is.

I strongly support freedom of the press, it's a big part of living in a democracy. Yet just because you can say anything, doesn't mean you always should. Morality as Oscar Wilde said, like art, means a drawing a line someplace.

Nigel Farage To Challage The Speaker

I don't largely agree with Nigel Farage's views on the EU, but I always enjoy listening to him, he is someone I'm glad is involved politics. The news that he is to stand as a candidate against John Bercow, is certainly a surprise though. Farage has said:

This man represents all that is wrong with British politics today. He was embroiled in the expenses saga and he presides over a Parliament that virtually does nothing. He is not a Conservative and yet he is sitting in one of the safest Conservative seats in the country. It means the people of Buckingham cannot vote for a Conservative even if they want to.

Bercow's election as Speaker of the House was always going to be a bone of contention. I do however find the idea that voters have a chance to pass verdict on the speaker very democratic, not just at this election but if it always happened. Bercow has a majority of 13,000, which makes Farage's chances of winning it slim, a shame in some ways he doesn't choose a more winnable seat, as I do think he would shake things up in Parliament and he would give the anti EU voters a voice.

Yet this election will bring out the angry voters. That will make for some surprising results, Michael Portillo of course had a majority of 16,000, he infamously lost his seat at the 1997 election. I wonder how angry people are? Watch this seat.

Aung San Suu Kyi

Aung San Suu Kyi was unsurprisingly found guilty yet again by the regime of Burma. The court sentenced her to three years in prison but that was immediately reduced to 18 months on the orders of the military government, who also said she could serve the time in her Rangoon home. This of course would keep her out of the public eye while elections take place in Burma. Yet also seem lenient in the wake of public opinion. It doesn't however change the fact she is a political prisoner.

I have a great deal of respect for Aung San Suu Kyi, what a remarkable woman. She won the 1990 general election, she should be Prime Minister. Instead was put under detention by the military regime and prevented from assuming office. She has spent the last 19 years imprisoned, isolated, under house arrest or unable to leave Burma. Yet she endures with such calm dignity, as if she knows her day will come.

This sentence presents a chance for it to come sooner, the international community needs to unite, until now they have been divided on how best to deal with Burma or acting in isolation. The fact the regime lowered the sentence shows they are not immune to international pressure or completely unconcerned. That is something to exploit and I truly hope they do.

General Election Tory Landslide PR

Robert Smithson on Political Betting has a very interesting post on a new election modelling system he has design. Which instead of applying a national swing to all 646 seats universally, the model is based on more local data that takes into account safe seats. With the current polls figures that gives Conservatives a majority of 148.

That raises both eyebrows, with that sort of majority the government doesn't have to listen to anyone. We will be in the same position we are now, as to reduce that amount of seats another party will have to get a landslide, or it will lessen over several terms in government to a level that can be defeated.

That's a ridiculous situation to be in. It's not democracy when you go from one extreme situation to another. I've always been slightly torn on the idea of proportional representation (PR), yet if these figures are right, I can't think of a clearer need for PR.

The main disadvantage said of PR is that it will weaken the government, yet that's exactly what we need. I don't imagine it will drastically change the political landscape in Britain, fringe parties do tend to be very singular in their message. That won't appeal to voters unless they want to make a protest, most people will vote as they've always have done, to form a government.

It's more important that with the two main parties both being a source of disenchantment for many and voter turn out dropping, that something changes. The first pass the post system doesn't offer change, just switching back and forth between parties, that increasing people don't vote for.

Lords "Reform" = Don't Vote Labour

As part of New Labour's "root and branch" reform, Lords will be given the ability to resign and stand as MPs. Not get fired for abusing their position, taking bribes or money undue to them, just resign if they want to be a MP and do it. You would be forgiven for thinking the purpose of reform is addressing accountability, both within the House of Commons and Lords. In practice it clearly doesn't work like that.

Speculation has already started as to whether Mandelson will step down to become a MP again. Which is based on the presumption that he's still electable. Yet there are bigger issues with Labours "reform" than a potential Mandelson comeback. Such as where is the reform?

Though Brown said he would clean up parliament he obliviously doesn't want to give away any advantage he has left. Therefore if we want a parliament that holds the government to account and is accountable itself, we need to use our vote to shape that. So how do we do that?

Democracy is a wonderful thing yet alas it makes change painful slow, with the options we have in front of us, tactical voting is the best option. Tories clearly look to be the winners at this election, what's in dispute is who's in opposition. Lib Dems are averaging at 20% in the current polls, Labour 24%. If Liberals became the opposition party it would fire a shot across the bow of parliament and change the political landscape within it.

As an opposition party they would keep reform on the agenda and challenge the Tories conservatism. What would be the point of New Labour, who are just authoritarian Tories that spend more on public services being in opposition? It changes nothing and equals voting for the status quo. This forth coming election presents the opportunity for us to reform parliament, since they won't.

Checklist for a Fascist State

In light of this article on imprisonment without trial or charge for months. I went looking for a Fascist state checklist. How does our government score?

Continuing nationalism, such as flying the national flag everywhere and taking pride in the national identity.


Ignoring "Human Rights" ethics.


Martialling the electorate by identifying "enemies" and scapegoating sections or particular groups.

Influence of the military - measured by how much is spent on defence against how much is spent on "social" programmes.


Media control, whether by "direct" control or with control in the hands of "sympathisers".

National security having a high profile in policy.


Government is overtly religiously linked to a particular faith.


Protection of Corporate Interests.


Overt sexism, measured as "masculine supremacy" and "oppression of women".


Trade Union activity is restricted or controlled.


Denigration of Intelligentsia and or/ restriction or control of higher education.


Emphasis on Crime and Punishment, measured as how harshly the criminal is punished and how much effort goes to "reforming" the criminal.


Corruption and cronyism, again looking at who gets what job, is connected to who and how the appointment is made.


Fraudulent elections - measured by the level of smear campaigning against opposition members and parties, dirty tricks and ballot box rigging to name but a few "tricks".

Score - 8/14

Like a teenager attempting to grow one, stubble but not quite a bushy moustache.

Question Time - Teenage Kicks

Question Time was a teenager special and David Dimbleby seemed to dress up for the occasion. More overwhelming than his tie however was Andy Burnham's incredibly vacant comments, "freedom is not absolute", wonderful to think he's in charge of the NHS. Firm understanding of law, democracy and common sense showing there. Freedom should be absolute, those little things like a fair trial, not being detained without charge, the right to protest, are the minimal you should expect as a human being from a democracy.

The panel had a 18-year-old student, Suzanne Burlton, it was nice to hear the comments of a generation that has in effect grown up under New Labour. Given they haven't known a government other than a Labour one, there was a real sense that this wasn't the direction they wanted the country to go in, which is very reassuring.

Brown's Constitutional Changes

Labour are to set about making "constitutional changes", them reforming our constitution does seem a joke. Though at least David Blunkett isn't in Brown's 'National Council for Democratic Renewal', that would be beyond a joke. Yet what reform does Brown propose?

For the Commons he suggests, curbing the power of whips and letting MPs select all select committees, take control of the Commons' business programme, and be given a greater chance to introduce legislation. MPs' expenses will be overseen by an independent body and will cover the Lords too. The House of Lords will also be given new powers to "punish" misconduct.

For the public Sir Tim Berners-Lee will advise the government on how to open up access to official information. MPs' expenses that everyone has seen in the Telegraph will be published on-line. Brown will consider whether to reduce the voting age from 18 to 16.

For a political advantage, the 30-year rule of releasing government information will be changed to 20 years, Labour are bringing out Thatcher.

Brown also supports a written constitution which is where it gets worrying, Jack Straw published a green paper on this in March, it shows the Labour idea of what constitution is. Yet I would support a written entrenched constitution, in effect our constitution in writing. As it would place a different focus when making laws, at the moment our rights are not granted to us by the government. Rather, the government has to justify any right it takes away. Countries with a constitution operate on a different idea, that your rights are granted to you. Given "terrorism" is the magic word that can even take away the right to a fair trial, sadly this has become more relevant under a Labour government, as has parliamentary reform.

Lest we forget.

David Cameron = Tony Blair + Worry

One positive aspect to come from this expenses saga is letting us see what party leaders are really like by their response. In doing so it has highlighted for me just how much of a Blair streak Cameron has and that worries me. As there is so much politics at play here and Cameron really does have the talent of making the best of a situation, as hasn't this expenses saga really become his clause 4 moment?

It seems very likely that unless Nick Clegg can really position himself as more of a challenge, Cameron is a Prime Minster in waiting. He will inherit an incredible amount of power New Labour have built up for the state and police to exercise. That makes it so important that he's not a Tony Blair and why I'm not just going to jump on the Cameron is our saviour band wagon.

As I watched Cameron's speech with the so carefully chosen words and actions, while humming "things can only get better" to myself. I pondered his radical plans announced which "give power to the powerless". They do have some good points I don't discredit that, though what I find the most radical, is that we're meant to trust that once in power he'll give power back to us, he's assuming that people have trust left to give.

In some respects Cameron has got the mood right, what he hasn't got right is he's exploiting it, turning reform into an party political issue like this muddies the water and puts pressure on to reforming quickly. Yet it shouldn't be rushed nor should parties leaders be the only ones to have a say, particularly if the tag line is rebalancing power.

What's more important right now and the one thing I see little action on is getting the house in order. This expenses mess needs sorting out swiftly and decisively. Public anger will subside to non lynching levels if MPs were being held to account. After sorting out this chaos in parliament can we move on to the detail, but the public will not get the best deal reforming in this climate.

Reforming Parilment - Wish List

It's amazing how many reformist are in parliament now, you would think with such a hunger for change it would have happened so much sooner. So like a MP I'm jumping on the band wagon, this would be my reform wish list:

• Put our heath care, education and social services outside of party politics. It's too important to play political point scoring with, politicians should be able to put aside party politics and not play god with peoples lives. As half the problem with our NHS is this ridiculous political game that gets played every 4 years, settle on a cross party consensus and don't keep moving the goal posts unless you have good reason.
  

• I'm not drawn to an independent fees office, mainly because it will be "independent" only in name. I would be far more comfortable with accountability, publishing on-line their full receipts with only bank details blacked out. It wouldn't be a problem if they were open and honest about their pay and expenses. You're not going to claim for a duck house knowing voters will see it.
  

• Cap Prime Minster serving time for two elections, I can't think of one PM that hasn't gone nuts in their third term. Two terms can be damaging enough, so cap it purely for damage limitation.
  

• Proportional representation, I'm torn with this as not having an absolute majority would be good for debate in parliament, and the dictatorship that majority governments run the commons under can do so much damage, particularly when combined with the point above. Yet changing boundaries so there are less safe seats and the knock effect of reducing MPs in Parliament, might create more of a mix and less dominance.
  

• Open candidate lists, as the recent selection in Erith and Thamesmead illustrates, the party can put who they want, not who's best for the local area, allowing people to have a say will address that.

• A elected House of Lords, to often it's used as political perk, combined with people that can't be elected just get made a Lord. Yet they have no accountability and they vote on our laws. There is nothing democratic about that.

• If the Prime Minster resigns call a general election within 6 months. They should not hold that position without facing a public vote.